|
Inefficiency, overstaffing, and low productivity, poor quality
of goods and services; continuing losses and rising debts of
for-profit government enterprises; lack of managerial skills or
sufficient managerial authority; unresponsiveness to the public;
undermaintenance of facilities and equipment; insufficient funds
for needed capital investments; excessive vertical integration;
obsolete practices or products, and little marketing capability;
multiple and conflicting goals; misguided and irrelevant agency
missions; underutilised and underperforming assets; illegal
practices; and theft and corruption.
Family values
and religion are emerging as powerful forces in the United
States, and, underscoring their importance, it has been noted
that the traditional family-centered societies of Asia by and
large have avoided the social problems that bedevil Americans,
particularly in inner cities. The trend is unmistakably away
from government and toward the other institutions — in a word,
privatisation.
But what is
privatisation? Savas defines the term as, "...relying more
on the private institutions of society and less on government to
satisfy people’s needs". It reduces the role of
government by increasing the role of other institutions of
society in producing goods and services and in owning property.
He goes on to say that in general, both public and private
sectors play important roles,and it is increasingly common to
refer to "public-private partnerships" which is a less
contentious term than "privatisation". He does not
agree with those who denounce privatisation as an act of
regression to a Darwinian state where only the fittest survive.
Private
non-government agencies offer more to the homeless poor than the
government-run shelters for the destitute. In chapter 6 of the
book, he gives strong evidence that privatisation, properly
carried out, generally leads to large increases in efficiency
while maintaining and even improving the level and quality of
public services.
Savas avers
that five forces have propelled the privatisation movement, viz,
pragmatic, economic, philosophical, commercial, and populist.
The goal of the pragmatist is better government, in the sense of
a more cost-effective one. Economic affluence reduces people’s
dependence on government and increases their acceptance of
privatised approaches. The goal of those who approach the matter
philosophically — some would say ideologically — is less
government, one that plays a smaller role vis-a-vis private
institutions; this is the Jeffersonian view — government that
governs least governs best. The goal of commercial interests is
to get more business by having more of government’s spending
directed towards them. And the goal of the populists is to
achieve a better society by empowering people so that they can
satisfy their common needs, while diminishing the power of large
public and private bureaucracies.
This book is
divided into three parts. Part one consists of a background
discussion that examines the growth of government, the reasons
for that growth, and its harmful consequences. Part two examines
the theory of privatisation while part three holds forth on its
practice. Though written for conditions obtaining in the United
States, I am sure that we can benefit by reading this time, as
there are many similarities between the economic scenarios
presented by the author and current realities in our economy.
Let us not
forget that the concept of partnership between public and
private sectors is not new to us. Our leaders had wisely chalked
out a programme for having a mixed economy for India. Where they
erred, perhaps, was in giving too little importance to the
private sector’s role.
Hopefully, we
shall not commit another folly by swimming to the other end of
the economic spectrum by wiping out the public sector altogether
and giving unbridled freedom to privately-owned industrial
monoliths. This book is worth a read.
* * *
Attack on
Parliament
by K. Bhushan
and G. Katyal. APH Publishing Corpn., New Delhi. Pages: V+215.
Price: Rs. 495/.
 A stunned
nation watched armed desperados invading the Parliament’s
premises and gunning down unarmed guards who valiantly defended
the entry to the sanctum sanctorum of democratic
India. The armed guards reacted and shot dead the terrorists.
Katyal and Bhushan narrate thus, "...a white Ambassador
driving towards the main Parliament building from the Parliament
Street entrance, its red light flashing. The Parliament sticker
on the Ambassador (DL3CJ 1527) was later found to have
anti-Vajpayee and Advani abuse scribbled on it. The car was
waved through the gate and went straight across the main gate
towards the Vijay Chowk end. The militants swung the car sharply
to the right at the bend in front of gate 12, but found their
way blocked by a clutch of cars belonging to the Vice-President’s
cavalcade".
It’s
movements provoked suspicions and the Parliament Security
Officer J.P. Yadav raised an alarm. He was killed and so was
Kamlesh Kumari of the CRPF but not before the rest of the
security forces were alerted. This happened on the wintry morn
of December 13, 2001 — at around 11.45 a.m. Then followed the
usual trading of charges between the Opposition and the ruling
party — one calling the attack a security failure and the
other termed it a success of the security system.
At the
international level, the accusing finger unerringly pointed at
our neighbour.
Terrorism has
been posing a daunting challenge to our polity for more than
five decades. The oldest is the Naga insurgency. Subsequently,
we have had Naxalites, Mizos, Bodos, Khalistanis and of course
now the ISI-sponsored Jehadis. Despite the perils, our
democracy has flourished and has gained respect in the comity of
nations for its principled functioning.
The authors
have done a good job of putting known facts in the form of a
book. It could have done with some more diligent proofreading
though.
* * *
US National
Missile Defense Strategy
by Dr MP
Srivastava. Gyan Publishing House, N. Delhi. Pages: 339. Price:
Rs. 590/-.
When the Cold
War was at its zenith, President Ronald Reagan of the USA had
unveiled the ‘Star Wars’. This was to be a comprehensive
space-based anti-missile defense network — that would
intercept and shoot down ICBMs and other missiles fired by the
enemy targeting the United States. However, the costs were
considered prohibitive and the program was more or less shelved
in due course.
Now, says Dr
Srivastava, President Bush’s administration has revived the
Star Wars theme by embarking on the National Missile Defense (NMD)
programme to protect the United States and the Allies from any
possible nuclear attack from the rival nuclear powers,
especially the "Rogue States" that have enough nuclear
strike capabilities to blackmail the United States or its
allies.
Here, a mention
is often made of North Korea’s missile development programme
and its proliferation to Pakistan — with China’s blessings.
This fuelled Pakistan’s ambitions to become an Islamic nuclear
power, that was capable of wielding clout not only with the
Arabian sultanates but also the Central Asian Republics. This
would, undoubtedly, have affected India’s strategic interests
in these regions. United States, too, would have been placed in
a none too happy position if the Islamic Bomb concept had caught
the imagination of elements hostile to its interests in West
Asia as well as in other parts of the world.
In July 1998,
Donald Rumsfeld, who was the Defense Secretary then too, had
predicted that nations seeking to develop long-range ballistic
missiles might be able to achieve that objective within five
years of deciding to do so. The United States might have little
or no warning about the testing or deployment of such missiles.
The same year, at the end of August, North Korea flight-tested
or deployment of such missiles. The same year, at the end of
August, North Korea flight-tested a three-staged ballistic
missile. The Clinton Administration reacted to these
developments by allocating funds for Future Years Defense Plan
for the deployment of National Missile Defense system. The
Administration identified several factors that prompted the NMD
decision.
These included
not only the immediate threat to United States, but also an
assessment of the maturity of the technology in the hands of
hostile powers and feasibility of deploying an effective defense
system. The ABM teaty was coming in the way of launching the NMD
and the Bush Administration has more or less abrogated it, much
to the Russians’ chagrin, and has allocated one billion
dollars to make NMD effective.
Whether these
developments would rein in the so-called rogue states is a moot
point. What needs to be considered is whether such massive
rearming by the United States augurs well for the civilised
world.
If you are a defense analyst
you might like to read this volume.
|
AFTER
Independence, we chose mixed economy as developmental model. The
public sector was prominent — not only in core industries but
also as an engine for all-round economic development. The
private sector played second fiddle — struggling for its
survival, caught in the crippling tangle of rules, regulations,
restrictions and restraints. Worse, the term ‘profit’
remained a dirty word for almost five decades of our
post-Independence economic thinking.
